What do you think about the currant justice system? I don’t think it’s right that 12 strangers have the right to make a decision that’s going to affect someone else their whole life. I understand the whole objective thing but still..
I think the victim should be the one to decide the punishment for the defendant. If the victim is unable to because they’ve been murdered, the victims family should get to decide. This gives them back a sense of control and closure for them to move on.
It might also deter future criminals for thinking they can get away on a technicality or because they have money or power.
I obviously know there are exceptions for example if the crime was committed by one of the victims family.

Justice must be calm and objective to ensure that the law is applied to everyone fairly.

The right to due process, a fair hearing and trial by jury if the offence is serious or the defendant requests it- form the foundations of justice as we know it in this country.
Juries do make the decision as to whether they believe that the defendant on trial is innocent or guilty.
But the decision on what sentence criminals get is made by the judge- not the jury.

I do think that prison sentences are unduly lenient- particularly for the most serious criminal offences and repeat offenders.
Sentences like- 4 months in jail for stabbing a police officer and his police dog with a 10 inch hunting knife in a public place.
This "softly softly" light touch approach to sentencing the perpetrators of horrific crimes undermines safety on the streets and public trust in the justice system.
On the other hand, the violent criminals who view attacks on the police as a badge of honour will be dancing with glee.
Some violent criminals have their own facebook and youtube videos showing them in their cells singing, celebrating and mocking their victims along with the law.

This year, London has seen over 80 murders- with 51 of these fatal stabbings.
It's easy to understand why the sister of a murdered woman remarked at the end of the trial that "Britain is too nice to evil men".
Her sister had been raped, tortured for hours and then burned alive by two convicted killers who had met in prison years earlier.
The killer's were career criminals whose past convictions included: murder, robbery, arson, burglary, illegal possession of firearms and knives.
They already had 1990's convictions for brutally murdering pensioners in their own homes.
The poor victim was a hard working 28 year old woman from Vietnam who had come to this country in search of a better life for her two children.

But to answer the main point, victims deciding the sentence would lead to a larger disparity in sentences, making a mockery of the whole thing. You've got some victims proudly proclaiming they have forgiven the criminal, and others who'd love to torture the criminal to death. Then you've got blackmail/threats against the victim and/or their family to let the criminals off.

Plus the sentence is supposed to rehabilitate the criminal. An emotionally vengeful or forgiving victim isn't going to be the best judge of that.

Judges are expected interpret the law and pass sentences that considered appropriate in line with sentencing guidelines. In deciding sentences, Judges are required to take into account not only the circumstances of the offence, but also the impact of that offence on victims and the wider society. Also, Judges will consider what punishment is likely to address the individuals offending behaviour.

If victims were to determine sentences, it is likely that maximum sentences would always be passed - or have a desire to pass sentences that are potentially unjust.

(Original post by londonmyst)
Justice must be calm and objective to ensure that the law is applied to everyone fairly.

The right to due process, a fair hearing and trial by jury if the offence is serious or the defendant requests it- form the foundations of justice as we know it in this country.
Juries do make the decision as to whether they believe that the defendant on trial is innocent or guilty.
But the decision on what sentence criminals get is made by the judge- not the jury.

I do think that prison sentences are unduly lenient- particularly for the most serious criminal offences and repeat offenders.
Sentences like- 4 months in jail for stabbing a police officer and his police dog with a 10 inch hunting knife in a public place.
This "softly softly" light touch approach to sentencing the perpetrators of horrific crimes undermines safety on the streets and public trust in the justice system.
On the other hand, the violent criminals who view attacks on the police as a badge of honour will be dancing with glee.
Some violent criminals have their own facebook and youtube videos showing them in their cells singing, celebrating and mocking their victims along with the law.

This year, London has seen over 80 murders- with 51 of these fatal stabbings.
It's easy to understand why the sister of a murdered woman remarked at the end of the trial that "Britain is too nice to evil men".
Her sister had been raped, tortured for hours and then burned alive by two convicted killers who had met in prison years earlier.
The killer's were career criminals whose past convictions included: murder, robbery, arson, burglary, illegal possession of firearms and knives.
They already had 1990's convictions for brutally murdering pensioners in their own homes.
The poor victim was a hard working 28 year old woman from Vietnam who had come to this country in search of a better life for her two children.

I remember that particular case of the Vietnamese lady and was shocked by the pure evil of those two men.
I look forward to the day we invent a 100% reliable lie detector so that we can give the death sentence in cases like this.

cool - OP's suggestion might actually be an excellent way of deterring crime; i mean would someone really want to mug someone or beat up their wife if they knew the victim could/would prosecute them to the fullest, including life imprisonment? certainly nah me.

the main problem of course is that the criminal justice system is not just about the victim; indeed there is no real justice for most victims. but the system is also about fairness to the defendant. we believe these people are still human beings with human rights, in most cases. rule of law means that law needs to be certain, so if you left it up to the victims for sentencing who knows what you're gonna get.

The problem with the victim themselves or the victim's family deciding the punishment is that it would be based on extremely high emotions rather than logic. They will be hurt and angry and heartbroken because of what's happened and this will affect their logical, rational judgement on what an appropriate punishment would be. They simply can't be objective and the law must be objective.

The ability of an expert witness to convey complex information in a way that a layperson can understand is crucial to any trial and really something that needs to be worked upon as people on a jury can make botched decisions based on not understanding scientific evidence, potentially changing someone's life forever. It's time to do away with these trivial sentences though. People who commit murder can get out in under 10 years these days which is just appalling.

(Original post by kristen2)
What do you think about the currant justice system? I don’t think it’s right that 12 strangers have the right to make a decision that’s going to affect someone else their whole life. I understand the whole objective thing but still..
I think the victim should be the one to decide the punishment for the defendant. If the victim is unable to because they’ve been murdered, the victims family should get to decide. This gives them back a sense of control and closure for them to move on.
It might also deter future criminals for thinking they can get away on a technicality or because they have money or power.
I obviously know there are exceptions for example if the crime was committed by one of the victims family.

Sentencing is done by the judge based on sentencing guidelines, not the jury.

(Original post by bones-mccoy)
The problem with the victim themselves or the victim's family deciding the punishment is that it would be based on extremely high emotions rather than logic. They will be hurt and angry and heartbroken because of what's happened and this will affect their logical, rational judgement on what an appropriate punishment would be. They simply can't be objective and the law must be objective.

The ability of an expert witness to convey complex information in a way that a layperson can understand is crucial to any trial and really something that needs to be worked upon as people on a jury can make botched decisions based on not understanding scientific evidence, potentially changing someone's life forever. It's time to do away with these trivial sentences though. People who commit murder can get out in under 10 years these days which is just appalling.

I been on a jury and jury get upset by cases they don't always act logically or rationally

(Original post by kristen2)
What do you think about the currant justice system? I don’t think it’s right that 12 strangers have the right to make a decision that’s going to affect someone else their whole life. I understand the whole objective thing but still..
I think the victim should be the one to decide the punishment for the defendant. If the victim is unable to because they’ve been murdered, the victims family should get to decide. This gives them back a sense of control and closure for them to move on.
It might also deter future criminals for thinking they can get away on a technicality or because they have money or power.
I obviously know there are exceptions for example if the crime was committed by one of the victims family.

(Original post by Joleee)
cool - OP's suggestion might actually be an excellent way of deterring crime; i mean would someone really want to mug someone or beat up their wife if they knew the victim could/would prosecute them to the fullest, including life imprisonment? certainly nah me.

the main problem of course is that the criminal justice system is not just about the victim; indeed there is no real justice for most victims. but the system is also about fairness to the defendant. we believe these people are still human beings with human rights, in most cases. rule of law means that law needs to be certain, so if you left it up to the victims for sentencing who knows what you're gonna get.

Your initial point suggests that there is a deterrent associated with the use of punishment?

But also that all offenders are rational actors?

Further, it is unlikely you would get a life sentence for an offence of robbery. Surely even if victims were allowed to pass sentence, this would need to be done in line with sentencing guidelines?